DeletedUser
Guest
Why would V not want to see them unlike you we are very aware of whats going on in our own war.
DeletedUser
Guest
thanks for posting recent stats..i forgot to post it
DeletedUser
Guest
recent stats actually show little change in the war. unless u count a 2 or 3 town difference as being that large a deal. as for the stats as a whole, av earlier in this thread tried showing people how to keep actual stats. in a war if u do forever, forever does not count the player a tribe might boot from their tribe. tribes do this all the time, exp. long term wars such as this. really, to keep up with any war stats, u have to actually know the war, the players involved, who was kicked and when. most dont bother, or know the players involved so stats become mixed alot. but no, if you think xvi has closed the stats by a 300 town margin from [v] up over a 1000 to up 650, u need to read and understand this game much better. or just stop posting stats.
actually im not sure why people even bother posting them. almost none place the correct players involved, nor talk of towns gained or lost from members jumping to another tribe or deleting. at best these stats are good for judging if a war is still actually going on, and how active it is. really looking at the stats from both wars, between wuke-dvader, xvi(lfah)-[v], there isnt much real warring going on at all.
what id rather see, instead of stats, is a world poll of actual players still playing this thing. personally i dont think 300 people are on this world, over 50k. maybe thats why tw has so many worlds, most hold less players then they are worth having on the server these days lol. why they dont merge or compress these old worlds ill never know. it comes down now not to who fights the best, but who plain doesnt get bored and stays that will win. not really what id call a war game.
actually im not sure why people even bother posting them. almost none place the correct players involved, nor talk of towns gained or lost from members jumping to another tribe or deleting. at best these stats are good for judging if a war is still actually going on, and how active it is. really looking at the stats from both wars, between wuke-dvader, xvi(lfah)-[v], there isnt much real warring going on at all.
what id rather see, instead of stats, is a world poll of actual players still playing this thing. personally i dont think 300 people are on this world, over 50k. maybe thats why tw has so many worlds, most hold less players then they are worth having on the server these days lol. why they dont merge or compress these old worlds ill never know. it comes down now not to who fights the best, but who plain doesnt get bored and stays that will win. not really what id call a war game.
DeletedUser
Guest
I think the best representation would be a series of maps showing the ground gained and the ground lost by each tribe.
DeletedUser
Guest
the stats should consider justicar too he left [v] too but no worries that the stats show that the war still active and looking the start of the war and the size of both tribe and looking to [v] players post at the irst month of war that xvi will gone and disband and blablablabla....... we showed that xvi will always be xvi the best tribe in w36
we absorbed the first hit and we hitted back adn we are doing very good also [v]
both tribe proved that they deserve to be here this is teh biggest war in w36 and more to come
regards
we absorbed the first hit and we hitted back adn we are doing very good also [v]
both tribe proved that they deserve to be here this is teh biggest war in w36 and more to come
regards
DeletedUser
Guest
When the tribe you are 'warring with' gets bored to the point of deletion (such as happened in my case) that doesn't really count. I had been bored for a long time, in the end the increase in premium prices was ebnough for me to decide I wasn't realy having any fun anymore, so hmmm.
DeletedUser
Guest
This war seems to be just about over....started with a bang and ending with a whimper. V cleaned up or reduced some pockets of XVI/LFAH strength in the middle of their territory but hasn't really expanded in the border regions. XVI/LFAH has shown some recent strength and have seriously bolstered their strength in a few K on the edges of V so its really a write off now (IMO). Seems both parties interest has turned elsewhere.
Interesting to note how resilient LFAH came to be in this war. Lot said about how useless they/we are and yet have grown through the struggle.
Interesting to note how resilient LFAH came to be in this war. Lot said about how useless they/we are and yet have grown through the struggle.
DeletedUser74958
Guest
The slowdown for the war is because the whole world is going inactive, lol
DeletedUser
Guest
[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: [V]
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: XVI
Players:
Timeframe: Last week
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 8
Side 2: 61
Difference: 53
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 72,780
Side 2: 587,094
Difference: 514,314
[/spoil]
And I repeat once more: Let there be life in this dead forum!
Tribes: [V]
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: XVI
Players:
Timeframe: Last week
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 8
Side 2: 61
Difference: 53
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 72,780
Side 2: 587,094
Difference: 514,314
And I repeat once more: Let there be life in this dead forum!
DeletedUser
Guest
We forgive [V] for being a little quiet these days :icon_wink:
valk
Guest
Wow... :icon_eek:
DeletedUser
Guest
Im not one to try and make excuses for stats but considering the amount of problems we have encountered in the last month or so i think the stats are quite reasonable, I mean its no secret that our great leaders have left the game, alot of our founding players plus the wizzy account getting deleted by that douchebag richard, All packs a punch in morale etc, But dont fear , we will be back to full fighting spirit soon enough.
DeletedUser
Guest
Really? Suddenly they're a decent tribe and they have PnP?
Look at some more stats before you post, please.
In case it skipped by you, [V] more-or-less IGNORED XVI for couple weeks to run some heavy internals and you still have almost no lead as a result. We didn't even run an OP ffs.
Good work?
33 vs 39 nobles is nothing to brag about. Previous weeks have shown XVI nobling MORE than that. All these stats show is that [V] has turned their attention away for a couple weeks, not that XVI is suddenly turning the tide. Purely the fact we can afford to do that is saddening.
What recent posters would like a cookie?
Look at some more stats before you post, please.
In case it skipped by you, [V] more-or-less IGNORED XVI for couple weeks to run some heavy internals and you still have almost no lead as a result. We didn't even run an OP ffs.
Good work?
33 vs 39 nobles is nothing to brag about. Previous weeks have shown XVI nobling MORE than that. All these stats show is that [V] has turned their attention away for a couple weeks, not that XVI is suddenly turning the tide. Purely the fact we can afford to do that is saddening.
What recent posters would like a cookie?
Last edited by a moderator:
bluedragon4
Guest
i think you mean 61 vs 8 nobles.
and if [V] has turned attention away, shouldnt they still be able to defend :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
Who are you talking to, and about what?
I did. [V] is winning long-term, but it seems they've taken a month-long or more break from attacking back:
[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: XVI
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: [V]
Players:
Timeframe: Last month
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 172
Side 2: 107
Difference: 65
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 1,648,553
Side 2: 959,211
Difference: 689,342
[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: XVI
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: [V]
Players:
Timeframe: Last week
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 78
Side 2: 9
Difference: 69
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 748,866
Side 2: 82,289
Difference: 666,577
[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: XVI
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: [V]
Players:
Timeframe: Last 48 hours
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 40
Side 2: 7
Difference: 33
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 382,683
Side 2: 63,176
Difference: 319,507
[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: XVI
Players:
Side 2:
Tribes: [V]
Players:
Timeframe: Last 24 hours
Total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 20
Side 2: 3
Difference: 17
Points value of total conquers against opposite side:
Side 1: 191,023
Side 2: 29,069
Difference: 161,954
Strange, that [V] would have so much internalling to do. If you look at the stats for total conquers, you'll see that [V] has over 20 more members than XVI. And yet, [V] is only nobling 100 villages more per week than XVI, and also happen to have the lowest net-growth rate of the top 3 tribes. That means that each member of [V] is nobling less villages each than XVI. Considering that XVI is the one taking villages from the enemy, how hard is it for [V] to internal? Or perhaps [V] is reluctant to admit to inactivity issues?
16 of [V]'s 65 members have registered no growth or losses in points for every single one of the past 7 days. By contrast, XVI has only 2 of 41 members in the same situation.
[V] isn't keeping their focus off XVI, they're highly inactive. And even if they are keeping focus off XVI, that doesn't explain (as bluedragon mentioned) why [V] can't seem to defend.
What numbers are you referring to? in the past 48 hours alone, it's been 40-7 in XVI's lead...
Methinks you'll need a cookie to survive. This is starting to look more and more like V-V-V, isn't it n3m? Sounds all too familiar :icon_wink:.
All this has proven is that the tides are very surely turning against [V], and their PnP team is scrambling for a way to blind others from the truth. But the stats don't lie, nor do the facts, nor the logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
*yawn*
So glad I deleted my account.
I think this has been officially the single most boring 'war' world 36 has ever seen, possibly the whole of TW.
So glad I deleted my account.
I think this has been officially the single most boring 'war' world 36 has ever seen, possibly the whole of TW.
DeletedUser
Guest
Its hard not to be hostile towards somebody who hasn't even paused to register what you're RESPONDING TO before flaming, but I'll give it a go.
u6s5l, if you had actually taken the time to register that I was responding to PREVIOUS posts (and the PREVIOUS statistics they were based on) it would have saved me some time having to clarify. Let me do so: I was responding to comments made on previous statistics. I was in disbelief over those particular comments. They were not made based on your current stats. I think I've repeated myself enough.
But fine, lets argue your stats.
+
Take a moment. 26 additional members -16 inactive. +10 active members. +100 conquers. So [V] have +100 conquers and +10 members. Not exactly horrid mate.
What point are you trying to make here? You've literally bashed [V] for something and then provided the statistics for me to point out your bashing was ungrounded.
Lets sum up the situation in regards to [V] as we both seem to agree on:
1) [V] have inactives.
2) [V] are internalling.
3) [V] aren't focusing on XVI (currently).
4) [V] have AROUND the same number of active players as XVI, according to your stats.
5) [V] are nobling AROUND the same number of vills per member as XVI, according to your stats.
Lets sum up the situation in regards to XVI (based on your stats):
1) XVI have nobled 78 vills in a week. Going back through pages I see noble rates from XVI against [V] have been similar in the past, and never so low as to have 78 vills in one week be a huge success.
2) Considering the above, XVI haven't looked to be performing drastically better offensively this past week than they have the entire war.
Now, considering your comment on drastic inactivity in [V], it surprises me you need somebody to answer this question for you:
Your Summary: All this has proven is that the tides are very surely turning against [V]
My Summary:
-XVI is still progressing at a slightly better rate than they were previously in terms of conquers against the other side - slightly, not drastically.
-[V] still has an active member-base of around the same size as XVI's, who are nobling at around the same rate, elsewhere
-[V] have yet to refocus on XVI.
and...
THE WHOLE POINT OF MY PREVIOUS SODDING POST: It is currently a one-sided war effort. I can't believe some of you are going on about these stats. What did you think was going to happen when [V] focused exclusively on internals? XVI would gift them vills so they could stay ahead on stats?
u6s5l, if you had actually taken the time to register that I was responding to PREVIOUS posts (and the PREVIOUS statistics they were based on) it would have saved me some time having to clarify. Let me do so: I was responding to comments made on previous statistics. I was in disbelief over those particular comments. They were not made based on your current stats. I think I've repeated myself enough.
But fine, lets argue your stats.
Right. Pretty much exactly what I was saying. I said [V] are taking a period in which they aren't focusing on XVI due to internals. Is inactivity an issue? Sure, but its not the reason there are next to no conquers against XVI right now if we still have an 80% active member-base (I figure I'd better not leave out the obvious this time).
.
+
.
Take a moment. 26 additional members -16 inactive. +10 active members. +100 conquers. So [V] have +100 conquers and +10 members. Not exactly horrid mate.
What point are you trying to make here? You've literally bashed [V] for something and then provided the statistics for me to point out your bashing was ungrounded.
Lets sum up the situation in regards to [V] as we both seem to agree on:
1) [V] have inactives.
2) [V] are internalling.
3) [V] aren't focusing on XVI (currently).
4) [V] have AROUND the same number of active players as XVI, according to your stats.
5) [V] are nobling AROUND the same number of vills per member as XVI, according to your stats.
Lets sum up the situation in regards to XVI (based on your stats):
1) XVI have nobled 78 vills in a week. Going back through pages I see noble rates from XVI against [V] have been similar in the past, and never so low as to have 78 vills in one week be a huge success.
2) Considering the above, XVI haven't looked to be performing drastically better offensively this past week than they have the entire war.
Now, considering your comment on drastic inactivity in [V], it surprises me you need somebody to answer this question for you:
That is taking out of consideration the fact that no tribe doesn't go without lost villages, and rate of loss as not increased overly recently.
Your Summary: All this has proven is that the tides are very surely turning against [V]
My Summary:
-XVI is still progressing at a slightly better rate than they were previously in terms of conquers against the other side - slightly, not drastically.
-[V] still has an active member-base of around the same size as XVI's, who are nobling at around the same rate, elsewhere
-[V] have yet to refocus on XVI.
and...
THE WHOLE POINT OF MY PREVIOUS SODDING POST: It is currently a one-sided war effort. I can't believe some of you are going on about these stats. What did you think was going to happen when [V] focused exclusively on internals? XVI would gift them vills so they could stay ahead on stats?
DeletedUser
Guest
I wouldn't know. Do you mean you're going to merge and play tribal-hugs? I left the world after a week of warfare in which I was positive on ennoblements vs V-V-V in a continent 2-3 ks deep into V-V-V territory as a result of oh, thats right, another merge of theirs. Would I have survived? Probably not, but mate, if XVI puts out what V-V-V did against me, I'm not concerned.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'm sorry that I hadn't realized that you were responding to posts that were over a week old only after I posted something recent. Actually, no, I'm not sorry. It was your job to quote it, not my job to figure it out, nor to care about your replies to week-old+ posts.
Perhaps not, unless you consider that the conquers still place you at a lower net-gain of villages from outside sources than XVI. What that means is that your tribe is losing villages to XVI, who is nobling the enemy. In the meantime, you are "internalling" more than XVI. With 16 inactive members, you'll be "internalling" for a long time yet. You completely disregard the point about net-growth, and that [V] is nobling easier villages.
The point you missed is the one I was trying to make. Read above, please.
Let's stop right there. [V] has taken 150 villages from internalling in the past week. That leaves over 350 villages that have been taken from other sources. Of those, 10 were from tribeless players, which leaves 340 villages. About 110 were from random other tribes. That leaves 230 villages from other sources. 7 came from XVI. That means 223 barbs, give or take about 10. That's nearly 44% barbarian ennoblement rate. As opposed to internal rate at around 29%. That means you're not so much internalling as barb-nobling, and hitting other small tribes...well, methinks that this whole internalling thing is just an excuse. When you're taking 230 barbarians instead of XVI villages, internalling isn't a valid excuse. Let's assume, even that half of those are from your own inactives who went barb. That still leaves 115 or so barbs. [V] isn't fighting their war, nor are they internalling like they claim, that's pretty clear. Barbs seem to be of the utmost importance, considering they make up the largest percent of [V] ennoblements.
The barbs must be giving a better fight.
But [V] are nobling easier villages, and losing more villages, which means XVI is actually outgrowing [V].
A success? Perhaps not. But when [V] is down 33 villages in 48 hours, the trend persisting would result in XVi taking the lead back from you relatively quickly. And considering that ennoblements have only sped up, and that [V] seems to have inactivity and focus issues, I think we can see that there's a bit more to the war than you'd like to admit :icon_wink:.
Read above.
Rate of loss shot from 65 in one week to 33 in two days. I believe that constitutes a veritable upturn in rate of loss, does it not? But if you wish to say that it's all due to inactivity, feel free. Excuses that only show that [V] can't cope with it's inactivity any more than it's been coping with XVI.
The rate has only sped up, as I continuously point out. In addition, [V] has more inactivity and lack of focus on their war than before. So XVI's progression should logically speed up, though I'll "concede" (it's not much of a concession, but there's no better word) that it remains to be seen whether or not it does.
XVI is using it's member-base in better capacity than [V], considering they are both outgrowing [V] and winning the war by taking enemy villages, as opposed to barbarians.
Well, that's clear enough. But why [V] didn't focus the entire time, I'm still unsure.
INTERNALS AREN'T [V]'S MAIN FOCUS. See, I can type in caps too :lol:?
Barbarians are the main focus. I'm very confused as to why you'd think that your excuses would hold up when the facts were brought to light, but you seem to think they will.
DeletedUser
Guest
Actually, I was comparing [V]'s currently increasing rate of inactivity, increasing reliance on the excuses of inactivity (while nobling barbarians more than inactives), and excuses of not focusing on the enemy to those I made for V-V-V so long ago.
